Permian “Wolfcamp” Limestone Reservoirs: Powell
Ranch Field, Eastern Midland Basin: Discussion1
S. J. Mazzullo2
The “E&P Notes” paper by S. L. Montgomery
(1996) on “Wolfcamp” resedimented carbonates in
the Permian basin concerns an exploration play
with the potential for significant reserves; however,
its economic importance and geological complexi-
ty, and the question of whether his model can be
extended to other areas in the Permian basin, war-
rant this discussion.
Montgomery (1996) stated that the model devel-
oped for the Powell Ranch field “…offers an excel-
lent example of the type of new opportunities
recently discovered…” (p. 1365), and that “Though
not yet identified, similar occurrences…may
exist…particularly in the Midland basin”
(p. 1364–1365). First, this play is not exactly new or
recently discovered. Tokio South field (northern
Midland basin), for example, was discovered in 1953
and produces from this type of reservoir. Perhaps
Montgomery meant that it is the play concept that is
new. Many of the early discoveries in this type of
facies indeed were serendipitous, and most such
reservoirs were not recognized as being of resedi-
mented origin even after they were discovered (e.g.,
Asquith and Drake, 1985); however, the concept
had been proposed as an exploration model nearly
two decades ago (Cys and Mazzullo, 1978; Mazzullo,
1982), and the resedimented origin of reservoirs in
the Powell Ranch field area specifically had been dis-
cussed by Cook (1983) and Cook et al. (1983). In
fact, this play concept had directed exploration for
these reservoirs in some companies in the late 1970s
(Mazzullo, 1984), and there is historical indication
©Copyright 1997. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
1Manuscript received November 4, 1996; final acceptance June 5, 1997.
2 Department of Geology, Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas
67260; e-mail: mazzullo@twsuvm.uc.twsu.edu
1750
that the exploration for some early discovered fields,
including Tokio South, was directed by a priori infer-
ence of a resedimented origin (H. Frenzel, 1978, per-
sonal communication). A number of papers fol-
lowed that described the deep-water setting of many
Lower Permian reservoirs in the Permian basin (e.g.,
Hobson et al., 1985; Loucks et al., 1985; Wiggins and
Harris, 1985; Gawloski, 1987; Mazzullo and Reid,
1987; Saller et al., 1989). Montgomery’s (1996) sec-
ond statement is more contentious. Many fields in
this type of reservoir already have been discovered,
both serendipitously and by design, in the Permian
basin (see Mazzullo and Reid, 1987; Mazzullo and
Harris, 1991). Reservoirs in such deposits therefore
are not “distinct possibilities” that “may exist.”
Rather, they define a play type that has been recog-
nized, explored for, and promoted for some time.
More cogent analyses of stratal architecture,
correlations, and porosity evolution than present-
ed by Montgomery (1996) are critical in interpret-
ing seismic sections and characterizing the occur-
rence of, and improving success in, exploration
for these reser voir s. A seemingly minor but
nonetheless important concern is the use of the
word “Wolfcamp” for these reservoirs. The section
from the base of the Dean Sandstone to the top of
the “Wolfcamp shale marker” for a long time had
been referred to as “Wolfcamp” because of correla-
tion difficulties. However, this issue was resolved
years ago by fusulinid biostratigraphic studies
(Wilde, 1975, 1990; Mazzullo et al., 1987; Reid et
al., 1988), which substantiated their assignment to
the lower Leonardian, as Montgomer y rightly
noted. The name “Wolfcamp” is erroneous and out-
dated, and should not be continued. Even the Texas
Railroad Commission recognizes this issue because
it has considered many legal disputes between
companies that arose over such terminology.
AAPG Bulletin, V. 81, No. 10 (October 1997), P. 1750–1753.
 (A)
NW deep shelf sandstone/siltstone SE
Pay Zones platform interior shale & shaly carbonate
Tubb Mbr
reef & grainstone resedimented carbonate
Lower Clear
Fork Fm
-4400' subsea

Wichita Fm 500 ft
(153 m)

Top of the Wolfcamp

(B) Dean
Sandstone

dolomite
limestone
Tubb Mbr

Lower -3300' subsea

Clear Fork Fm
500 ft
(153 m)

Dean
Wichita Fm Sandstone

Top of the Wolfcamp

(C)
1.2
Tubb Mbr
L o w er C le ar
F o rk
Dean Sands tone
m sec)

Wichita
Tim e ((ms)
Time

Wolfcamp

1.6

Tubb Mbr
Lower C le a r
F o rk

Wichita Dean Sandstone

Wolfcamp

Figure 1—Stratigraphy of the lower Leonardian platform-to-basin system, Midland basin; all sections are northwest-
southeast. (A) Electric log section (hung on –4400 ft subsea datum) in Yoakum County showing stratigraphic assign-
ments, stratal correlations, and facies; length of section 20 mi (32 km). (B) Electric log section (hung on –3300 ft sub-
sea datum) in northern Hockley County showing the nature of the Tubb-to-Dean transition and the stratigraphic
occurrence of regionally productive resedimented carbonates; length of section 22 mi (35 km). (C) Top—seismic
line parallel to section shown in (B); bottom—interpreted facies in the lower Leonardian section, based on sample
analyses, illustrating occurrence of resedimented carbonates. In all three sections, periplatform facies are lime-
stone downdip and dolomite updip.
1752 Discussion and Reply
However, the most important points in this regard
are that (1) biostratigraphic and sedimentologic
studies have established that lower Leonardian
facies in the basin are periplatform equivalents of
the Wichita and Lower Clear Fork formations on
the platform, these disparate facies being readily
identifiable by fusulinids and electric log correla-
tions, and (2) these studies have affirmed the tem-
poral equivalence of the basinal Dean Sandstone
and the Tubb silstone on the platform (Figure 1).
These correlations and assignments are not shown
in Montgomery’s (1996) figures 1 and 4. His overly
simplified stratigraphic architectural scheme is mis-
leading and underscores the complexity of the
platform-to-basin facies change within which resed-
imented carbonate reservoir facies occur. This
complexity has been shown (Mazzullo et al., 1989)
to impart a similar complexity on the stratigraphic
and spatial distribution of potential reservoir facies
in this section, which regionally occur (1) within
the basinal Wichita and the sub-Dean Lower Clear
Fork sections and (2) as carbonates interbedded
with the Dean Sandstone (Griffin and Breyer, 1989)
(Figure 1B, C).
The question of the timing of platform-to-basin
resedimentation of carbonates has been debated
for years. Some workers believe that resedimenta-
tion occurs mainly during sea level highstands
(e.g., Schlager et al., 1994), whereas other workers
argue for both a highstand and a lowstand timing
(e.g., Enos and Stephens, 1993). Montgomery’s
(1996) principal line of evidence for the lowstand
timing of Lower Permian resedimentation is that
component clasts are derived from a “…diversity of
shelf environments…,” which he believes “…thus
suggest mixing of debris by storm-generated cur-
rents or other high-energy processes” (p. 1358). My
examinations of many cores of megabreccia from
the Permian basin, including those from the Powell
Ranch field, have impressed me with the observa-
tion that, aside from those of upper slope deriva-
tion, clasts are composed of only platform-margin
facies with consistently no evidence of weathering
rinds (Mazzullo, 1982, 1994b; Mazzullo and Reid,
1987, 1989). Even associated grain-flow deposits
are dominated by platform-margin constituents. A
most pertinent question to ask in light of these
observations is how such periplatform carbonates
could have been reworked by storms or other high-
energy processes while that platform was subaerial-
ly exposed. Montgomery’s (1996) evidence simply
does not substantiate a lowstand origin of the
resedimented carbonates.
A principal concern is Montgomery’s analysis of
porosity evolution. He suggested that porosity result-
ed from secondary dissolution related to dewatering
of basinal shales. That much of the porosity in these
rocks is secondary is not in dispute. The fact is that
dewatering, during either early compaction or later
clay mineral transformations, does not generate
enough undersaturated fluid to cause significant
dissolution (Foscolos, 1984; Hutcheon, 1989). Such
fluids instead appear to cause more porosity reduc-
tion by cementation than porosity increase by dis-
solution in either the sandstones or carbonates
through which they migrate (Foscolos, 1984). A
more viable model of porosity development in
Lower Permian resedimented carbonate reservoirs
(Mazzullo, 1994a, b, c) throughout the Permian
basin, including along the Eastern shelf, was pro-
posed by Mazzullo and Harris (1991, 1992). Their
model involved the generation of undersaturated
connate f luids by organic acids, CO 2 , and H 2 S
evolved during hydrocarbon maturation in the
deep burial environment. This model has been
applied to explain porosity development in other
hydrocarbon basins (e.g., Moore and Druckman,
1981; Heydari and Moore, 1989). The model postu-
lates more plausible relationships among burial
depth–time history, hydrocarbon maturation and
migration, and porosity occurrence (Mazzullo,
1994d) than models that involve meteoric expo-
sure or dewatering.
Last, I point out that reservoirs in resedimented
carbonates in the Permian basin are known to
occur both in narrow, channelized grain-f low
limestones relatively distal from platform margins
(as Montgomery described) and, in the northern
Midland basin and most of the Delaware basin, in
pervasively dolomitized megabreccias and grain-
flow deposits in more proximal platform-margin
locations (Figure 1) (e.g., Wiggins and Harris,
1985; Gawloski, 1987; Mazzullo and Reid, 1987;
Saller et al., 1989; Mazzullo, 1994a). The produc-
tive zones in many such reservoirs are thicker,
fields are larger, and reservoir geometry is more
lobate than in channelized grain-f low deposits
along the Eastern shelf (e.g., Saller et al., 1989).
The exploration approach for reservoirs in resedi-
mented carbonates in the Permian basin also must
take into account these varied depositional set-
tings and diagenetic alterations.
REFERENCES CITED
Asquith, G. B., and J. F. Drake, 1985, Depositional history and
reservoir development of a Permian Fistulipora-Tubiphytes
bank complex, Blalock Lake East field, west Texas, in P. O.
Roehl and P. W. Choquette, eds., Carbonate petroleum reser-
voirs: New York, Springer-Verlag, p. 309–316.
Cook, H. E., 1983, Sedimentology of some allochthonous deepwa-
ter carbonate reservoirs, Lower Permian, west Texas: carbon-
ate debris sheets, aprons, or submarine fans? (abs.): AAPG
Bulletin, v. 63, p. 442.
Cook, H. E., A. C. Hine, and H. T. Mullins, 1983, Platform margin
and deep-water carbonates: Lecture Notes, SEPM Short Course
No. 12, 573 p.

Cys, J. M., and S. J. Mazzullo, 1978, Discussion: lithofacies and sed-
imentation of Lower Permian carbonates of the Leonard
Mountain area, Glass Mountains, western Texas: Journal of
Sedimentary Petrology, v. 48, p. 1363–1368.
Enos, P., and B. P. Stephens, 1993, Mid-Cretaceous basin margin
carbonates, east-central Mexico: Sedimentology, v. 40,
p. 539–556.
Foscolos, A. E., 1984, Diagenesis 7. Catagenesis of argillaceous sed-
imentary rocks: Geoscience Canada, v. 11, p. 67–75.
Gawloski, T. F., 1987, Nature, distribution, and petroleum poten-
tial of Bone Spring detrital sediments along the northwest shelf
of the Delaware basin, in D. Cromwell and L. Mazzullo, eds.,
The Leonardian facies in W. Texas and S. E. New Mexico and
guidebook to the Glass Mountains, west Texas: Permian basin
Section SEPM Publication 87-27, p. 85–105.
Griffin, A. F., and J. A. Breyer, 1989, New exploration targets in
the northern Midland basin: depositional and diagenetic history
of West Smyer field, Hockley County, Texas, in J. E. Flis, R. C.
Price, and J. F. Sarg, eds., Search for the subtle trap, hydrocar-
bon exploration in mature basins: west Texas Geological
Society Publication 89-85, p. 75–86.
Heydari, E., and C. H. Moore, 1989, Burial diagenesis and thermo-
chemical sulfate reduction, Smackover Formation, southeast-
ern Mississippi Salt basin: Geology, v. 17, p. 1080–1084.
Hobson, J. P., C. D. Caldwell, and D. F. Toomey, 1985, Early
Permian deep-water allochthonous limestone facies and reser-
voir, west Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 69, p. 2130–2147.
Hutcheon, I. E., ed., 1989, Short course in burial diagenesis:
Mineralogical Association of Canada, Short Course Handbook,
v. 15, 409 p.
Loucks, R. G., A. A. Brown, C. W. Achauer, and D. A. Budd, 1985,
Carbonate gravity-flow sedimentation on low-angle slopes off
the Wolfcampian northwest shelf of the Delaware basin, in P.
D. Crevello and P. M. Harris, eds., Deepwater carbonates–a
core workshop: SEPM Core Workshop 6, p. 56–92.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1982, Stratigraphy and depositional mosaics of
lower Clear Fork and Wichita Groups (Permian), northern
Midland basin, Texas: AAPG Bulletin, v. 66, p. 210–227.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1984, Foreshelf carbonate facies mosaics, Permian
Midland basin, Texas (abs.): SEPM Annual Midyear Meeting,
Abstracts, p. 52.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1994a, Dolomitization of periplatform carbonates
(Lower Permian, Leonardian), Midland basin, Texas:
Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 9, p. 95–112.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1994b, Lithification and porosity evolution in
Permian periplatform limestones, Midland basin, Texas:
Carbonates and Evaporites, v. 9, p. 151–171.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1994c, Models of porosity evolution in Permian
periplatform carbonate reservoirs (debris-flows and turbidites)
in the Permian basin: west Texas Geological Society Bulletin,
v. 34, no. 1, p. 5–12.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1994d, Porosity in carbonate slope and basin facies
(Permian): can it be predicted?, in J. F. Gibbs, ed., Synergy
equals energy teams, tools, and techniques: west Texas
Geological Society Publication 94-94, p. 133–145.
Mazzullo, S. J., and P. M. Harris, 1991, An overview of dissolution
porosity development in the deep-burial environment, with
Mazzullo 1753
examples from carbonate reservoirs in the Permian basin, in
M. Candelaria, ed., Permian basin plays, tomorrow’s technolo-
gy today: west Texas Geological Society Publication 91-89,
p. 125–138.
Mazzullo, S. J., and P. M. Harris, 1992, Mesogenetic dissolution: its
role in porosity development in carbonate reservoirs: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 76, p. 607–620.
Mazzullo, S. J., and A. M. Reid, 1987, Basinal Lower Permian
facies, Permian basin: part II. Depositional setting and reser-
voir facies of Wolfcampian–lower Leonardian basinal carbon-
ates: west Texas Geological Society Bulletin, v. 26, no. 8,
p. 5–10.
Mazzullo, S. J., and A. M. Reid, 1989, Lower Permian platform and
basin depositional systems, northern Midland basin, Texas, in
P. D. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F. Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds.,
Controls on carbonate platform and basin development: SEPM
Special Publication 44, p. 305–320.
Mazzullo, S. J., A. M. Reid, and L. J. Mazzullo, 1987, Basinal Lower
Permian facies, Permian basin: part I. Stratigraphy of the
Wolfcampian–Leonardian boundary: west Texas Geological
Society Bulletin, v. 26, no. 7, p. 5–9.
Mazzullo, S. J., W. E. Hipke, T. D. Weidemeier, T. P. Wingate,
M. G. Gaylord, and A. M. Reid, 1989, Dynamic stratigraphy of
the Tubb and Dean formations (Early Permian), northern
Midland basin, Texas: west Texas Geological Society Bulletin.
v. 29, no. 1, p. 5–11.
Montgomery, S. L., 1996, Permian “Wolfcamp” limestone reser-
voirs: Powell Ranch field, eastern Midland basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 80, p. 1349–1365.
Moore, C. H., and Y. Druckman, 1981, Burial diagenesis and poros-
ity evolution, Upper Jurassic Smackover, Arkansas and
Louisiana: AAPG Bulletin, v. 65, p. 597–628.
Reid, A. M., S. T. Reid, S. J. Mazzullo, and S. C. Robbins, 1988,
Revised fusulinid biostratigraphic zonation and depositional
sequence correlation, subsurface Permian basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 72, p. 102.
Saller, A. H., J. W. Barton, and R. E. Barton, 1989, Slope sedimenta-
tion associated with a vertically building shelf, Bone Spring
Formation, Mescalero Escarpe field, southeastern New Mexico,
in P. D. Crevello, J. L. Wilson, J. F. Sarg, and J. F. Read, eds.,
Controls on carbonate platform and basin development: SEPM
Special Publication 44, p. 275–288.
Schlager, W., J. J. G. Reijmer, and A. Droxler, 1994, Highstand
shedding of carbonate platforms: Journal of Sedimentary
Research, v. B64, p. 270–281.
Wiggins, W. D., and P. M. Harris, 1985, Burial diagenetic sequence
in deep-water allochthonous dolomites, Permian Bone Spring
Formation, southeast New Mexico, in P. D. Crevello and P. M.
Harris, eds., Deep-water carbonates–a core workshop: SEPM
Core Workshop 6, p. 140–173.
Wilde, G. L., 1975, Fusulinid-defined Permian stages, in Permian
exploration, boundaries, and stratigraphy: west Texas
Geological Society and Permian basin Section SEPM Publication
75-65, p. 67–83.
Wilde, G. L., 1990, Practical fusulinid zonation: the species con-
cept, with Permian basin emphasis: West Texas Geological
Society Bulletin, v. 29, no. 7, p. 5-15, 28–34.
Permian “Wolfcamp” Limestone Reservoirs: Powell
Ranch Field, Eastern Midland Basin: Reply1
Scott L. Montgomery2
In light of the comments by S. J. Mazzullo
(1997), it is appropriate to begin this reply with a
few general statements about the scope and
intent of the “E&P Notes” ser ies. The “E&P
Notes” section of the Bulletin is intended to pro-
vide basic introductions to various petroleum
plays and fields of interest to the AAPG member-
ship. Although it adopts a case-history approach,
the series covers material in a more general and,
where appropriate, selective manner than is typi-
cal of the more extensive field summaries pub-
lished elsewhere by AAPG. Current industr y
usage regarding each particular play or field, with
respect to geologic correlations, terminology, and
other factor s, is followed. The ser ies is not
intended to do any of the following: contribute
detailed interpretations to specific areas of geo-
logic investigation or debate; provide reviews of
recent research on stratigraphy, structure, or
other geologic aspects, except where absolutely
necessary to an understanding of the case history
at hand; resolve long-standing disputes or prob-
lems in nomenclature, stratigraphic correlation,
structural interpretation, or the like; propose
detailed exploration models; or offer a forum for
individual company “success stories.” In addition,
as a practical consideration, the brief time frame
in which articles for this series are produced
places inevitable limitations upon the ability to
include the most current academic research rele-
vant to a particular subject. “E&P Notes” will con-
tinue to best serve its readers by offering intro-
ductory summaries that may then be used as a
basis for further investigation.
Discussion on the content of “E&P Notes” is
strongly encouraged, provided these limits are
©Copyright 1997. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists. All
rights reserved.
1 Manuscript received January 29, 1997; revised manuscript received
February 21, 1997; final acceptance June 5, 1997.
21511 18th Avenue East, Seattle, Washington 98112.
1754
kept in mind. Information beyond these limits is
also welcome where it may augment the reader’s
understanding of the particular play or field
under consideration.
Mazzullo’s (1997) comments fall both within
and outside of the limits just described. I would
begin by pointing out in regard to the established
nature of the play that this is plainly stated in the
very first few sentences of the report: “Lower
Permian…detrital limestones form an important
regional reservoir…well known along the Eastern
shelf, northeastern and southern Central Basin
platform, and southeastern Delaware basin…”
(Montgomery, 1996, p. 1349). Indeed, a paper on
which Mazzullo was the lead author (Mazzullo
and Reid, 1987) is cited in suppor t of this.
Similarly, difficulties with regard to the term
“Wolfcamp” in reference to these reservoirs,
along with their true age (Leonardian), are also
noted in my paper’s introduction. A decision was
made to retain the term “Wolfcamp” due to its
continued widespread use in the industry (see, for
example, Kosters et al., 1989), however unfortu-
nate. Clearly, as Mazzullo stressed, this usage is
“erroneous and outdated” and should be replaced.
He is commended for supplying references to that
effect. My future reports will take account of this
information.
Most of the remaining criticisms contained
in Mazzullo’s (1997) paper concern matters that
lie outside the focus of the or iginal ar ticle
(Montgomery, 1996) and, more generally, the stat-
ed purview of the “E&P Notes” series. The sub-
jects discussed—platform-to-basin stratigraphic
correlations, timing and processes of resedimen-
tation for detrital carbonates, and porosity evolu-
tion—were touched upon as background only
and, as such, were presented without significant
supporting data. These subjects obviously are of
considerable importance to any detailed regional
understanding of these reservoirs, and Mazzullo
is to be complimented for his concise, valuable
reviews on this score; however, these reviews are
AAPG Bulletin, V. 81, No. 10 (October 1997), P. 1754–1755.

marginal to the main thrust of the article, which
concerned the Powell Ranch area and, specifically,
the use of three-dimensional seismic data for
identifying infill prospects.
In summary, the information presented by
Mazzullo (1997) is important and beneficial to
readers interested in resedimented lower Leonardian
carbonate reservoirs of the Permian basin. Rather
than a critique of the data presented on Powell
Ranch field, this information is considered a signifi-
cant and useful addition to it. Appreciation is extend-
ed to Mazzullo for his contribution.
Montgomery 1755
REFERENCES CITED
Kosters, E. C., et al., 1989, Atlas of major Texas gas reservoirs: Gas
Research Institute and Bureau of Economic Geology, University
of Texas at Austin, 161 p.
Mazzullo, S. J., 1997, Permian “Wolfcamp” limestone reservoirs:
Powell Ranch field, eastern Midland basin: discussion: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 81, p. 1750–1753.
Mazzullo, S. J., and A. M. Reid, 1987, Basinal Lower Permian facies,
Permian basin: part II. Depositional setting and reservoir facies
of Wolfcampian–lower Leonardian basinal carbonates: West
Texas Geological Society Bulletin, v. 26, no. 8, p. 5–10.
Montgomery, S. L., 1996, Permian “Wolfcamp” limestone reser-
voirs: Powell Ranch field, eastern Midland basin: AAPG
Bulletin, v. 80, p. 1349–1365.